BVA9506029 DOCKET NO. 93-10 184 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for defective vision. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James. J. Dunphy, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from March 1943 to September 1945. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that as a result of exposure in a high pressure chamber, he began developing vision problems. As documented by his private physician, the veteran is currently legally blind. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board), in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the veteran's claim for service connection for defective vision is not well grounded. FINDING OF FACT Defective vision was not shown in service; the veteran has presented no evidence of a nexus between his current loss of vision and his active service or any incident therein. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claim for service connection for defective vision is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The threshold question here is whether the veteran's claim is well grounded. If it is not, the Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim and it may proceed no further. Boeck v. Brown. 6 Vet.App. 14, 17 (1993) A well grounded claim for service connection must include evidence that the claimed disability exists and evidence of a nexus between the disability and service. If service medical records do not show the claimed disability and there is no medical evidence to link a current disability with events in service or with a service connected disability, the claim is not well grounded. In the instant case, it is adequately established, by private medical records, that the veteran has a bilateral visual loss, with blindness in the right eye. What remains needed to present a well grounded claim is evidence of a nexus between the current visual loss and service. There was no symptomatology, diagnosis or treatment for any form of eye trauma or disease during the veteran's period of active duty. When the veteran was examined for the purpose of separation from service in September 1945, there were no eye abnormalities noted and his uncorrected visual acuity was 20/20 in each eye. In various claims and requests for treatment, in 1950, 1957, 1983, there was no mention made of visual loss. In 1957, the veteran did report participation in service in experiments with high altitude chambers. In an October 1984 report from the state Division of Rehabilitation Services, it was indicated that the veteran was blind in the right eye. The underlying pathology was given as retinal detachment of the right eye in 1941 or 1942, and retinal folds of the macula of the left eye. The statement attributing the veteran's current right eye blindness to retinal detachment in 1941 or 1942 is not competent medical evidence. It is based on history provided by the veteran which is inconsistent with recorded contemporaneous clinical data, i.e., normal eye exams on examinations for induction and separation from service. Hence, the veteran's history of a retinal detachment in 1941 or 1942 is not credible. Furthermore, even if it was credible, it would not be probative of his claim. The years 1941 and 1942 predate the veteran's entry in service. Evidence of a retinal detachment in either of those years would merely establish that eye pathology preexisted service and not provide a nexus between service and current eye disability. The veteran argues that he did not have a service separation examination and was blind in the right eye on separation from service. This is wholly inconsistent with contemporaneous records in his file, namely the report of his separation examination. Hence, this statement by the veteran is not credible. In summary, the only link between the veteran's current loss of vision and his active service is in statements by the veteran offering opinions to that effect. As a layperson, the veteran is not competent to offer an opinion which establishes medical causation. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91 (1993) In the absence of any competent evidence of a nexus between the veteran's current loss of vision and his active service, the claim is not well grounded. ORDER The claim for service connection for bilateral defective vision is dismissed. GEORGE R. SENYK Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.